https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366834 The appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the CESTAT order resulted in penalties being confirmed for individuals and one firm, albeit reduced. The appeals questioned the penalty confirmation under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for involvement in clandestine clearance of goods without physical handling. The penalties were reduced due to excessive quantum imposed initially, with a further reduction based on partial payments made by the appellants. The judgment disposed of the appeals without costs, ensuring a fair resolution. en-us Tue, 01 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:41:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366834 The appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the CESTAT order resulted in penalties being confirmed for individuals and one firm, albeit reduced. The appeals questioned the penalty confirmation under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for involvement in clandestine clearance of goods without physical handling. The penalties were reduced due to excessive quantum imposed initially, with a further reduction based on partial payments made by the appellants. The judgment disposed of the appeals without costs, ensuring a fair resolution. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366834